Interesting day in Law

So, first thing’s first… the folks now running UnofficialCKI got Cease & Desist letters recently. I would like to point out to all of you that KI’s law firm said that I should be commended for my research into the Intellectual Property issues. So where the hell is my commendation? Huh?

The letter makes some interesting assertions, some of which are interesting, but most of which are pretty much BS attempts at intimidation. I’m going to try my hand at this legal research thing again… bear with me. IANAL.

KI cites Title 15 of the US Code (AKA the Lanham Act), specifically sections 1114(1)(a) and 1125(c)(1)… those are interesting. Let’s have a look.

15 U.S.C. 1114(1)(a)
use in commerce any reproduction, counterfeit, copy, or colorable imitation of a registered mark in connection with the sale, offering for sale, distribution, or advertising of any goods or services on or in connection with which such use is likely to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive;

Let’s first address that the primary intent here is to limit the use in commerce. KI’s lawyers deny that, and it’s certainly true that not using it in commerce doesn’t EXEMPT you, but it certainly makes it a little more difficult to assert. Then you have the part “…is likely to cause confusion…mistake…deceive”. Nothing on UCKI is confusable, mistakable, or conceivably deceptive by the reasonable person standard. I’m sure you could find some idiot to be confused… but it’s not likely for most.

I think this is an appropriate time to ask Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) what he has to say about the Lanham Act. As you may know, Sen. Hatch is the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee. He says: “the bill will not prohibit or threaten noncommercial expression, such as parody, satire, editorial and other forms of expression that are not a part of a commercial transaction” — It won’t, eh? Try telling that to Kiwanis.

15 U.S.C. 1125(c)(1)
The owner of a famous mark shall be entitled, subject to the principles of equity and upon such terms as the court deems reasonable, to an injunction against another person’s commercial use in commerce of a mark or trade name, if such use begins after the mark has become famous and causes dilution of the distinctive quality of the mark, and to obtain such other relief as is provided in this subsection.

This really doesn’t have as much to do with the actual offense as it does the remedies for it.

Further, the idea that the acronym “CKI” is a common law trademark is a stretch, at best. After all, the reason why it’s not registered is because the USPTO would NEVER grand that Trademark. Never. For all the freakin’ registered trademarks KI has, you know this one would be too if they could.

And the whole “K in a Circle” design? Yeah… next thing you know these people will be claiming that putting any letter within any regular geometric shape is “confusingly similar” to putting a K in a circle. Yeah right. Hell, Kiwanis’ own logo is a hell of a lot more confusing (as far as the CKI logo goes) than UCKI’s. Hint: They actually look the same.

But these things all come down to one important point: the UCKI folks aren’t diluting anything or causing any sort of harm whatsoever to KI or CKI. This is just an attempt to squelch free speech and keep members from being able to bitch about the CKI Board and Staff.

END CKI BANTER

And that ties in perfectly with an article I saw today on Slashdot… turns out some whacked-out judge in Florida decided that the First Amendment was irrelevant and prohibited some guy from talking about his Ex-Girlfriend on the internet ABOUT ANYTHING. He can’t even mention her name (he’s been disallowed from using the name “Katy” at all) even if it’s TRUE. This should be great news for both the KI Office Staff (who can now effectively keep cancerous leaches like me from even mentioning Circle K) and the Ex’s mother… who’d love to get her name pulled from this website.

Hehe… tough-luck… by the time either of them get to the courthouse this is going to get overturned.